23-687 |
MRP Properties Company, LLC v. U.S. |
Whether, when analyzing whether an entity is a facility “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, courts should consider pollution-producing activities that the entity managed, directed, or conducted, or should instead limit this analysis to waste-disposal and regulatory-compliance activities. |
23-686 |
Cela v. Garland |
Whether noncitizens who were “granted asylum,” but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). |
23-683 |
Vincent v. Garland |
Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm Melynda Vincent, who has one 15-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check. |
23-677 |
Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger |
(1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. |
23-668 |
King v. Emmons |
(1) Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was based on “an unreasonable determination” of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether the Georgia Supreme Court “unreasonably applied” this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky under Section 2254(d)(1). |
23-665 |
Goede v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP |
Whether, where an unemployment applicant’s religious beliefs are independently sufficient to cause her refusal to follow an employer policy, a state can deny her unemployment benefits by holding that philosophical and personal beliefs outweigh her religious beliefs. |
23-664 |
Benning v. Oliver |
(1) Whether, where the Supreme Court has required that a prisoner is entitled to procedural safeguards if their “correspondence” is intercepted, respondents are entitled to qualified immunity simply because the correspondence in the Supreme Court case was postal mail, rather than email; and (2) whether the doctrine of qualified immunity should be abolished, pared back, or clarified. |
23-652 |
Dotson v. Justus |
Whether a habeas petitioner can show that a mental illness constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” that warrants reopening a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), and equitably tolling the statute of limitations, without evidence that the mental illness rendered the petitioner incapable of filing during the limitations period. |
23-649 |
Price v. Montgomery County, Kentucky |
(1) Whether absolute immunity is unavailable under 42 U.S.C § 1983 where a prosecutor knowingly destroys exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether absolute immunity is unavailable under Section 1983 where a prosecutor defies a court order that compels specific action, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion. |
23-648 |
Brinker Int'l v. Steinmetz |
Whether, under the Rules Enabling Act, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and this court’s precedents, a class can be certified by ignoring individualized issues of damages and injury and instead proposing to award every class member the same “average” amount for alleged injuries even if they did not suffer those injuries at all. |
23-638 |
Ravenell v. U.S. |
Whether, to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) in a prosecution for a non-overt-act conspiracy, the government bears the burden of proving to a jury that the conspiracy existed within the limitations period, or instead bears no burden beyond proving the elements of the non-overt-act conspiracy. |
23-625 |
Boam v. U.S. |
Whether a defendant produces or possesses a depiction involving the use of a minor engaging in “lascivious exhibition,” and thus “sexually explicit conduct,” under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), by secretly recording a nude minor showering or engaging in ordinary grooming activities, when the video depicts absolutely no sexual or sexually suggestive conduct of any kind. |
23-621 |
Holcomb v. Stinnie |
(1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988. |
23-618 |
Medina v. Colorado |
Whether it is consistent with due process for a court to convict a criminal defendant without finding that the defendant is guilty. |
23-583 |
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas |
Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. |
23-578 |
Kinzy v. U.S. |
Whether a district court can insulate from vacatur a sentence based on an erroneously enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range simply by stating, without explanation, that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the error, or whether, to avoid resentencing, the district court must comply with this court’s clear command in Gall v. United States and Rita v. United States to sufficiently explain why the sentence imposed is warranted even if the Sentencing Guidelines range was wrong. |
23-568 |
Bartlett v. Baasiri |
Whether a defendant’s status as an instrumentality of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b)(2) “is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint,” as this court held in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, or at any time “after a suit is filed,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held. |
23-541 |
Donnellon v. Jordan |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s use of the First Amendment analysis of City of Houston, Texas v. Hill negated the objective Fourth Amendment standard of Maryland v. Pringle; and (2) whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that initiating a takedown maneuver to effectuate an arrest on a person who did not comply with an order to place his hands behind his back and pulled away was an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. |
23-525 |
Murphy Co. v. Biden |
Whether the Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to declare federal lands part of a national monument where a separate federal statute reserves those specific federal lands for a specific purpose that is incompatible with national-monument status. |
23-524 |
American Forest Resource Council v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the president can use an Antiquities Act Proclamation to override Congress’ plain text in the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 to repurpose vast swaths of O&C Act timberlands as a national monument where sustained-yield timber production is prohibited; and (2) whether the secretary of the interior can override the O&C Act by designating 80% of the O&C timberlands as conservation “reserves” where sustained-yield timber harvest is prohibited. |
23-500 |
Gimenez v. Franklin County, Washington |
Whether the Washington Voting Rights Act is subject to strict scrutiny. |
23-488 |
Sands v. Bradley |
Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over a petition for habeas corpus alleging that a prisoner’s unconstitutional conditions of incarceration require release, either because habeas jurisdiction generally extends to conditions-of-confinement claims, or because it at least extends to such claims when the prisoner seeks his release from custody. |
23-402 |
Oklahoma v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 violates the private non-delegation doctrine; and (2) whether the act violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by coercing states into funding a federal regulatory program. |
23-377 |
Dutra v. Jackson |
(1) Whether this court’s precedents the only source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit construed clearly established law too abstractly when it denied qualified immunity by citing only its own precedents involving the use of tasers, police dogs, and neck restraints on already handcuffed or subdued suspects when—as the body-cam footage shows—none of those facts were present here. |
23-365 |
Medical Marijuana v. Horn |
Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. |
23-248 |
Broadnax v. Texas |
Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision that James Broadnax failed to establish a prima facie equal protection claim conflicts with this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky. |
23-120 |
U.S. Soccer Federation v. Relevent Sports, LLC |
Whether allegations that members of an association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. CVSG: 3/14/2024 |